Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of implementation of the EU EcoManagement and Audit Scheme and of the EU Ecolabel

1. EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 30.6.2017
COM(2017) 355 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL
on the review of implementation of Regulation (EC)No 122/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by
organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) and the
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009
on the EU Ecolabel
{SWD(2017) 252 final}
{SWD(2017) 253 final}

2. 2
1. Purpose of the report
EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are part of the EU policy framework for sustainable consumption
and production. The EU Ecolabel was created in 1992 and EMAS in 1995. Both were re-
launched as part of the Communication on sustainable consumption and production and the
sustainable industrial policy action plan (SCP action plan)1
in 2008. The objective for the EU
Ecolabel is:‘…to promote products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire
life cycle and to provide consumers with accurate, non-deceptive, science-based information
on the environmental impacts of products’; the objective for EMAS is:‘...to promote
continuous improvements in the environmental performance of organisations by establishment
and implementation of environmental management systems by organisations, the systematic,
objective and periodic evaluation of the performance of such systems, the provision of
information on environmental performance, an open dialogue with the public and other
interested parties and the active involvement of employees in organisations and appropriate
training.’
Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel2
(the EU Ecolabel Regulation)
requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on
the implementation of the EU Ecolabel scheme, and also to identify elements for a possible
review of the scheme.
Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations
in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) 3
(the EMAS Regulation)
requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and Council a report
containing information on the actions and measures taken under this Chapter (Chapter VIII)
and the information received from the Member States pursuant to Article 41. Article 50 of the
Regulation requires the Commission to review EMAS in the light of the experience gained
during its operation and international developments. It is to take into account the reports
transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with Article 47.
This Commission report and its annexes fulfil these requirements. They also provide the
findings of the Fitness check that has been carried out on the legislation as part of the
European Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT4
). The
REFIT objective of the Fitness check is to understand how the Regulations perform against
their intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society.
EMAS and the EU Ecolabel are integrated parts of the product policy framework as presented
in the 2008 Communication on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable
Industrial Policy Action Plan5
. Since then the 7th
Environment Action Programme6
has
pointed to the need for a policy framework that gives more appropriate signals to producers
and consumers to promote resource efficiency and circular economy and the Communication
1
COM (2008) 397
2
Regulation (EC) 66/2010
3
Regulation (EC) 1221/2009
4
COM(2012) 746
5
COM (2008) 397
6
Decision No 1386/2013/EU

3. 3
on the Circular Economy Action Plan7
pointed to the need to support efforts on both
production and consumption to achieve a transition to a circular economy – including making
better use of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel. At the same time, the Regulations are clearly
relevant in delivering the UN's 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and
in particular Goal 12 to 'ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns'.
As well as delivering environmental objectives, EMAS and Ecolabel have the potential to
support economic objectives. For example, firms, including SMEs that participate in EMAS
can boost their financial performance and competitiveness by increasing their resource
efficiency. If widely used and appropriately implemented EMAS and Ecolabel could drive
innovation and deliver real market change.
This report evaluates the performance of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel in this wider context.
2. Assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence
and EU added value
In 2013, the Commission committed to undertake a Fitness check of the EU Ecolabel and
EMAS Regulations. In line with the Commission's Better Regulation guidelines, the Fitness
check examined the two schemes in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
coherence and their EU value added. It also paid specific attention to understand how the
Regulations perform against the intended benefits for citizens, businesses and society.
In terms of the process, the Fitness check was supported by two separate evaluation studies8
that were supported by stakeholder-engagement including an open public consultation for the
EU Ecolabel and a focused stakeholder consultation for EMAS. This stakeholder consultation
was particularly important because the comprehensiveness of the Fitness check exercise was
limited to some extent by the voluntary nature of the schemes and the lack of data to quantify
the schemes' impacts. The absence of a commonly agreed method to quantify and benchmark
environmental performance of organisations and products also means that it is not possible to
compare systematically products and organisations that are participating in the schemes with
those that are not. Moreover, the Regulations did not define clear objectives for their uptake
and therefore, it is not possible to evaluate quantitatively whether the schemes have delivered
what was expected of them or not.
Nevertheless, the Fitness check allowed an assessment of the functioning and performance of
the schemes, allowing conclusions to be drawn on what is - and/or isn't - working well.
The main findings about how the Regulations meet their objectives as identified and
investigated through the Fitness check intervention logic are that they:
7
COM (2015) 614
8
Final Report Supporting the Evaluation of the Implementation of EMAS (June 2015), Adelphi and S. Anna
School of Advanced Studies
Project to Support the Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (April 2015), Ricardo
Energy & Environment

4. 4
 Contribute to reducing the environmental impact of consumption and production
(general objective).
 Contribute to promoting continuous improvements in the environmental performance
of organisations and promote products with reduced environmental impact (specific
objectives) through the EU Ecolabel criteria and through the environmental
improvements observed in EMAS organisations (operational objective).
However this contribution is:
 Substantially limited by the level of uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel by
producers and organisations (operational objective) largely linked to the limited
awareness by external stakeholders including business partners, consumers but also
authorities resulting in limited market and administrative/regulatory reward for
participation as well as due to participation criteria that may in some cases be difficult
to reach by EU industry.
 Limited compared to the overall breadth of the challenges to be addressed in terms of
reducing the overall environmental impacts of consumption and production.
Despite these limits, the Regulations remain relevant as part of a package of EU policy
responses to a growing need to change current consumption and production patterns, as
reflected in current strategic policy objectives, including the Europe 2020 strategy9
, the
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe10
, the 7th
Environment Action Programme11
and the
EU action plan for the Circular Economy12
. Among EU policy tools, EMAS and the EU
Ecolabel (together with green public procurement) are unique in that they aim to address the
environmental impact along the whole life cycle, including the increasing number of impacts
of European consumption that happens in countries outside the EU where products and
materials are often produced and from which they are imported to the EU. For EMAS, there is
a question over its future relevance as ISO 14001, revised in 2015, increasingly adopts many,
but not yet all its main elements.
The Regulations have been partly effective as they ensure:
 Enhanced environmental performance for those products that carry the EU Ecolabel.
However, the quantitative benchmark of environmental excellence (top 10-20 % of
environmental performance of products on the market) cannot be verified due to the
lack of an agreed methodology for comparison and in the absence of comprehensive
data. Also, in some cases, when the validity of EU Ecolabel criteria is extended
without a thorough analysis of the evolution of the market situation, the EU Ecolabel
may no longer reflect environmental excellence.
 Enhanced environmental performance on the majority of the core indicators including
on energy, water and CO2 for EMAS certified organisations. On the core indicators
9
COM(2010)2020 final
10
COM(2011)571 final
11
DECISION No 1386/2013/EU
12
COM(2015)614final

5. 5
waste and materials the picture is mixed with more than 75% of EMAS registered
companies experiencing a positive performance impact on waste and materials on one
side and a negative average performance calculated from an a sample of reports on the
core indicators on the other. Studies show that EMAS generally delivers a better
increase in environmental performance than ISO 1400113
.
However the overall effectiveness of the instruments is reduced by the limited uptake:
 The uptake of EMAS and the EU Ecolabel is not sufficient to achieve significant
changes in overall consumption and production patterns and, through this, deliver
significant environmental benefits beyond the companies and organisations deciding
to be part of the schemes. The limits in uptake for both Regulations can be linked to a
lack of awareness and market recognition; lack of recognition in public policy; and
compliance and verification costs.
For the EU Ecolabel, there is a: lack of promotional activities at all levels,
Commission, Member State and (voluntary action) by companies; high number and
stringency of criteria requirements; the challenge of compliance with Article 6(6)
prohibiting the use of hazardous substances. There are also significant differences in
the uptake for different types of products, with several product groups having no - or
only marginal - uptake, reflecting barriers for some specific product groups on one
side, and on the other side a lack of a strategic approach for selecting for which groups
to develop/revise criteria.
For EMAS additional barriers are a: lack of integration into public policy in the form
of incentives and relief from other regulatory requirements ('regulatory relief'); lack of
promotional activities, again at all levels; the existence of a globally recognized and
less demanding (in terms of reporting / validation) environmental management system
(ISO 14001) which is the market leader.
The effectiveness for both schemes varies between Member States with some achieving no or
very low uptake while others - such as Germany and Spain with respectively 1882 and 1289
registered EMAS sites and France with 555 and Italy with 359 registered EU Ecolabel
licenses - achieving better results. Such differences can be mainly attributed to the level of
resources invested by Member States as well as to whether initiatives are taken to integrate
the instruments into the wider set of environmental policies. For example, linking EMAS to
rules on environmental inspections could provide an incentive to adopt EMAS and obtain
'regulatory relief'14
; likewise, Ecolabel could be incentivised through a link to Green Public
Procurement.
Based on current limited cost and benefit data it is not possible to answer the question of
efficiency. There is some evidence linking the investments made (costs) and the effects
generated and in general estimates related to the cost of running the scheme are relatively low.
13
Remas Study (2006), Linking environmental management and performance and Testa et al. (2014) EMAS and
ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. In: Journal of Cleaner
Production 68:1, pp. 165-173.
14
Regulatory relief is understood as an ease in regulatory or administrative burden (such as frequency of
environmental inspection, fast track procedures, lower fee or taxes etc.) resulting from compliance with EMAS.

6. 6
 A rough estimate of the average annual management cost to the European
Commission (i.e. cost excluding staff costs) is EUR 500 000 for EMAS and EUR
1 100 000 for the EU Ecolabel. These costs cover a system of 33 product groups,
2 000 licenses and 44 000 products for the EU Ecolabel and 4 000 organisations and
7 500 sites for EMAS.
 Significant differences in implementation efforts at Member States' level reflect
differing evaluations of the cost/ benefit ratio. Given their voluntary nature, the
schemes cannot be considered to impose any disproportionate burdens on Member
States or on companies and organisations, both of which invest in them only to the
extent that they believe it is beneficial. However, low investment also leads to limited
uptake and limited impact.
 For some EMAS registered organisations – especially those involved with energy
production – energy efficiency measures can result in significant savings (according to
the evaluation study this amounts to approximately EUR 1.3 billion for all EMAS
registered organisations over two years).
However efficiency is reduced:
 When compliance and verification cost for individual companies and organisations
outweigh the benefits and so reduce the value for producers and organisations and
discourage their participation in the schemes. The impact of this is stronger with small
operators. The low uptake of EMAS compared to ISO 14001 also indicates that the
experience of cost/benefits by organisations between the two schemes is different.
 Where there is low or no uptake of specific product groups. Under the EU Ecolabel a
number of product groups have no or marginal uptake indicating that the market is
immature and/or that the administrative burden or verification cost for compliance
with certain set of criteria may be too high and act as a barrier for participation.
Both schemes are considered to be broadly coherent with and complementing other relevant
EU policies linked to EU Sustainable consumption and production. However, the evaluation
points towards issues regarding the need to:
 Further explore synergies with EU policies that could make better use of the
opportunities provided by the EU Ecolabel and/or EMAS including but not limited to
the circular economy action plan, the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive, the
Public Procurement Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive.
With regards to the coherence between the two schemes the evaluation shows that they are
complementing each other with focus on different targets, but a slight overlap can appear
when both EMAS and EU Ecolabel address specific service sectors – such as for tourism and
camping. In this case care should be taken not create confusion for consumers that can choose
based on both schemes.
The EU added value delivered by the schemes is uneven. The Regulations delivered EU
added value to the extent limited by the voluntary nature of the schemes. Added value is
delivered by providing a framework for harmonised rules and procedures across the internal
market, which gives credibility and transparency to environmental claims and can support

7. 7
intra-EU trade. The framework delivers information on the environmental performance of
products and organisations and the opportunity for integration and streamlining with other EU
policies. In this way, the framework supports producers and organisations that are willing to
go beyond mandatory measures; including especially SMEs who would not have the internal
capacity to build their own systems.
A full quantitative cost/benefit assessment has not been possible. However, the tools operate
in a context of general public support for sustainable production and consumption: 77% of the
EU population surveyed for Eurobarometer indicated that they are willing to pay more for
environmentally friendly products if they feel that the claims can be trusted. Whilst responses
to the public consultations specific to these tools tended to come from those already actively
engaged in the tools, they were also generally positive about them. For example, 79% of the
EU Ecolabel stakeholders found that the EU Ecolabel was a valuable tool to facilitate higher
uptake and free circulation of green products across Europe and 95 % wanted to keep it either
as it is or with changes. At the same time more than 70 % of all EMAS organisations
surveyed found that they had improved or significantly improved performance on energy
efficiency, use of materials, water consumption and waste production.
The uptake of EMAS is significantly lower compared to ISO 14001. However, the evaluation
shows that EMAS companies perform as well or better than ISO 14001 organisations in terms
of environmental performance; that the specific EMAS requirements for transparent reporting
and control by public authorities (not required by ISO 14001) give higher credibility and a
better potential for integration into environmental policy. Evidence from the experience of a
number of EU Member States, which have actively pursued this, confirms this potential.
However, because the schemes have not achieved major uptake across Europe it is
difficult to demonstrate full EU added value beyond the environmental improvements for
the products, services and organisations that participate. In particular, the impact of EMAS
has suffered from the competition with ISO14001 which provides a globally recognised
alternative to EMAS. Nevertheless, the interaction between the two schemes has been
constructive and EMAS has inspired new and improved developments under the global ISO
14001 standard brining it closer to EMAS although significant differences remain. EMAS,
unlike ISO 14001, provides a compliance and reporting platform that makes environmental
performance of the organisation transparent to the public and authorities. This platform also
has the capacity to facilitate the recognition of best performers by the authorities, the
development of supportive measures and trigger a decrease of administrative burden. This
capacity is explained by the fact that authorities and other third parties unlike with ISO are
given access to and need to sign off information on environmental performance and legal
compliance, thus providing sufficient security to delegate relief from other regulatory
burdens.
3. Conclusions
EU Ecolabel and EMAS are part of a wider package of product policy instruments that
contribute to the Circular Economy. The Fitness Check (evaluation study and stakeholder
consultation) confirms the useful – even if limited- role of the schemes as voluntary
instruments for businesses that facilitate transition to a circular economy and provide

8. 8
information on environmental performance of products and organisations to consumers and in
business to business transactions.
The Fitness check results show that the uptake of the schemes could be better and more
efficient. It identifies clear limitations of the two instruments given their voluntary nature and
the limited level of uptake for a number of product groups and the low awareness of the two
schemes. There is a need for a more focused approach to maximize impacts on the ground.
The Commission will therefore improve the performance of the EU Ecolabel Regulation
scheme and make it more focused to ensure bigger cumulative impact, by taking the
following actions:
 Develop a more strategic approach for the EU Ecolabel which would include:
o The definition of product groups, including streamlined criteria for selecting
products and for the discontinuation, revision and prolongation of existing
criteria for each product group, linked to the rate of uptake for existing
criteria. A more targeted approach also includes bundling of closely related
product groups where appropriate (e.g. various paper-related products with
high potential such as Newsprint and Tissue paper).
o The discontinuation of the following product groups: flushing toilets and
urinals, sanitary tapware and imaging equipment, as those product groups
have very limited uptake.
o Setting specific operational objectives, targets and adequate monitoring
activities.
o A communication strategy, towards both producers and consumers,
identifying target audiences and division of responsibilities for promotional
activities shared with the Member States, industry participants and relevant
multipliers, in line with the ten priorities, notably the jobs and growth agenda.
 Examining options to reduce administrative and verification costs, simplifying the
consultation process and developing a practical modus operandi for the
implementation of Article 6.6 and 6.7.
 Options and best practices to increase the role of the EU Ecolabel in public
procurement as well as a benchmark for environmental excellence.
 Undertake some preparatory studies on product groups jointly for Green Public
Procurement, Ecodesign, Energy labelling and Ecolabel tools. This will be saving
costs and prevent inconsistency across studies commissioned by different DGs for
different tools.
 Improving consistency and integration between the EU Ecolabel and existing
national/regional labels

9. 9
With respect to the EMAS Regulation, and the mixed results of the Fitness Check, the
commitment and support of Member States for the scheme will be a decisive factor for
continuing the scheme. Therefore, in 2017, the Commission will seek confirmation of the
Member States' commitment to:
1) the continuation of the scheme and
2) the implementation of measures supporting a better take-up.
Depending on the support of Member States, the Commission will develop actions to further
increase the added value of the scheme:
 Develop, in collaboration with Member States, additional opportunities to use EMAS
as a tool for decreasing administrative burden and regulatory relief. The potential for
using the tool to decrease administrative burden by providing greater regulatory relief
remain large and have been unevenly tapped into across Member States.
 Use the compliance validation and transparency on environmental performance
required by EMAS to facilitate the implementation of environmental policies under
energy, emissions to air, biodiversity, water or waste management.
 Examine how the implementation of EMAS can be better integrated into the
implementation of the Green Action Plan for SMEs15
.
 Set out a clear strategy for communicating, including identification of relevant target
audiences and division of responsibilities for promotional activities shared with the
Member States, industry participants and relevant multipliers, in line with the ten
priorities, notably the jobs and growth agenda.
 European business promotion with focus on front runners and competitiveness
advantages in collaboration with Member States with EMAS as the "premium"
environmental management scheme.
 Take into account the evolution of ISO Standard 14001 in 2015 and interaction
between the revised standard and EMAS.
 Replication of the measures implemented by the Member States that achieved a
significant number of EMAS registrations and recognized as best practices.
 Ensure efficient reporting channels from organisations to authorities so that EMAS
verified environmental performance and legal compliance can be used to facilitate the
implementation of other environmental policies.
15
COM (2014) 440